22. Interesting! Seriously. Never read much about this until your post. Thanks.

23. certain phenomena, by their nature, are not repeatable, and "accepted by science" is vague

What are you looking for exactly? Some validation that you are smart and right to deny all these things? Or are you seriously looking for evidence?

I think there is darn good evidence for ETs, if you look into the UFO field. Of course, this area has a lot of disinfo and extensive govt coverups and science doesn't do a good job with this sort of phenomenon. But there is more than enough evidence for UFOs being real, and the best explanation for many UFOs is ET in nature.

24. Wow, here you go.....

"Some validation that you are smart and right to deny all these things". Well, I would say so far I am right since none of these thing are accepted by science. It has nothing to do with being smart. It is just the truth.

Give me your evidence for ETs being real. Links and scientific proof. And your "extensive govt coverups" crap is a typical excuse in these areas.

As more and more people have cell phones and easily accessible cameras it is amazing there is not more proof of these ETs.

26. I'll waste my time, but not much of it

Modern science is not capable of validating supernatural phenomena. We are not advanced enough in our reasoning to do this. That's all you have to admit.

Stop already with the juvenile attention-getting requests for someone to come and convince you. Convince you of what? To leave your state of denial?

There actually is a researcher who has developed and organized a body of data into a system with scientific and logical supportive arguments. Experiments have begun on his theories and they are supporting his line of reasoning. What I'm telling you is someone has developed a theory of how the paranormal works.

If you really cared and were on top of the research, you'd know this and you would be reading his book instead of challenging people on a forum to "convince you."

27. LOL.....

So modern science cannot handle pseudo science! That might be te worst defense of nutty scientific claims I have ever seen in 30 years of debunking this crap.
Give me the name of this researcher, I cannot wait to see his published peer reviewed papers.

29. I will await your proof!!

30. logical fallacy

You're the one who named it "pseudo-science." The rest of us just call it unexplained phenomena.

And I won't give you the name. Find it out yourself, because this is nothing more than a game to you. No source will ever be enough because that would end your self-serving, psychologically satisfying little pastime.

If you're any kind of researcher, you can find it out in less than five minutes.

31. I would know who this super duper researcher if he really was anything....

important. He would be all over the news.

You realize that people like you are ALWAYS on the brink of some major discovery?? Either ESP or Aliens or Unlimited power, etc. The list of shit that is never proved has been around for 100s of years.

56. Some people have perfect pitch.

Ask them to sing an "A," and they will sing an "A" right, perfectly in tune every time. You probably cannot do that. I can come close, but I can't do it every single time. On the other hand if I hear a note, I can usually tell you what it is.

I obviously learned to associate a sound with the name of a note. And that means that my brain formed so as to be able to do that.

Now, I can't see further than a few feet in front of me without a lot of help from the science of optics. That's also something a little strange and not average about the way my brain formed. If I didn't have glasses, I would think that the world beyond those few feet didn't exist, and people who told me about it were crazy. You can't prove it to me, I would say.

What is more, I am partly color-blind. Wow! That means that I see the world a little differently than most people. I cannot even imagine the colors I cannot see.

So, I cannot say whether some brains are tuned to perceive reality in a different way -- whether more accurately or less accurately than my own. I cannot know whether certain animals, with their heightened sense, let's say of sight or hearing or smell or just instinct can know the world and experience many things that I cannot.

I have recently heard that scientists have discovered that birds have some way of perceiving direction and radar through a means that we did not previously recognize.

Humans have not yet reached the state of total knowledge.

So, while we may not have proof that some of the "strange," inexplicable experiences that some of us have are true or merely imagination or coincidence, if they happen to us, we cannot dismiss them as mere figments of our imagination. They may be merely imagined, but they may not.

So, we just observe and stay alert to the real world and try to live in it with our feet on the ground but without fear of experiencing things we cannot explain.

It's called staying sane in an insane universe. Or, alternatively, admitting ignorance and wonder in an all-knowing and amazing universe. Take your pick, but if something happens to you, you will know that it happened. And if not, good for you. You can live in the certainty of knowing that there is nothing beyond your understanding.

I don't mean to insult you. I really mean that we don't have much choice about these things, so we should be happy and live with our feet on the ground whether we experience strange things or not.

72. Good response.

I rarely venture into this group (and most of the threads & posts I've flipped through
today remind me why) but there are the occasional thoughtful & sincere posts that
catch my eye. You made two such in this thread and I (for one) appreciate them.

67. I cannot remember the source now and I know this thread is quite old, but

there was a report that Mother Nature responds at the quantum level. Apparently, in chlorophyl, there is some sort of entity -- I want to say a molecule, but fear I may be either too large or too small in so doing -- that reacts to light at the quantum level, such that a single quanta of light simultaneoosly activated two of these different and distinct chlorphyl-ish entities. (A quanta is a single particle of light.)

I mention this because, although not an effect observable to the naked eye, this quantum activity would be an aspect of Mother Nature that would have been thought of and dismissed as 'supernatural' until biologists had observed and validated it.

I am reminded of Hamlet's words "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in thy philosophy."

I wish I could remember where on DU I saw the article referenced. I remembered thinking to myself when I read it, "Wow, Nature works in strange ways." I'm not a biologist either, just an interested layperson. It really was an incredible story.

51. Keeping an open mind

NJC and NMW - well stated. As much as I rely on science there are still a zillion things left for them to explore. I can't believe there'll ever come a time when we KNOW IT ALL. All right already, so there are some in this forum who delusionally feel they know it all--but that doesn't count.

With regard to the paranormal, like you, I think it's difficult to replicate simply because science doesn't yet have the necessary knowledge and tools to do so--but I believe at the gut level there are things man will discover about this universe and our role in it that will blow people away. I truly don't believe that we've yet begun to scratch the surface of what's "out there" To blanketly dismiss the paranormal simply because science has not yet got to the bottom of it is to be smugly ignorant. Besides, whatever is the harm in keeping an open mind?

37. Well, once again, you have no knowledge of this area.....

You claim only people claiming pseudo science attend " bogus colleges" but that is not true. Read and learn....

The Creationist Museum creator is Ken Ham, he has a degree from Queensland University of Technology a respected university. His son has a degree in Geology from Oklahome State university? Are these bogus colleges?

Austin, Steven A., Ph.D., Education, B.S. (Geology), University of Washington, Seattle, WA,1970, M.S. (Geology), San Jose State University, San Jose, CA, 1971, Ph.D. (Geology), Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA, 1979, he is the head of the Institute for Creation Research. Are these bogus colleges?

There are 100s more. But I feel at this point it would be a waste of time to tell you about them.

Please provide any research that has enhanced the knowledge of any of the topics I listed in the OP.

41. I asked for links to these studies you keep mentioning. I got nothing. Your choice not mine.

42. Evidence comes in different forms.

There is documentary evidence. There is also testimonial evidence.

Paranormal events are occurrences that we cannot explain with our current knowledge and that were experienced or seen only by one or a few people. (If an event that we cannot explain occurs and many people observe it or experience it, then the fact that so many people report it makes it more believable.) They may be supported by testimonial evidence.

The idea that bacteria existed was considered just a myth until someone looked more carefully into a microscope. A new tool and a clever way of using it were required to provide the evidence that bacteria existed.

So, the thing that makes a paranormal event different from other events is that it may be that only one person or a smaller group of people have experienced it. That may mean it didn't happen. The person experiencing it may have misinterpreted the experience or imagined it. But that doesn't mean it didn't happen. It definitely means that you don't have to believe it happened if it didn't happen to you and you didn't experience it.

WWI happened. Lots of people lived through it. There are lots of reports about it. That is the evidence that it happened. But I wasn't alive when it happened, and I don't remember it. I just accept that it happened because so many people lived through it and wrote about it.

Evolution supposedly happened. I wasn't there. But it happened, and I believe it happened even though I can't personally verify the evidence that it happened.

But many Fundamentalists do not believe that evolution happened. They prefer to believe a theory about creation that I consider to be just an allegory, as believable as someone else's paranormal experience. That's their choice.

To some, the idea that global warming has something to do with human activity is a sort of paranormal belief -- a conspiracy theory. I disagree with them, but they deny the scientific proof of the human factor because it is too complicated and requires a background in science that they don't have.

So we have to be aware that sometimes we don't believe things that are true because we don't have the knowledge or experience to assess them correctly.

Should a paranormal event happen to you, you will believe it. If it doesn't happen to you, you don't need to believe it.

44. Speaking of Allen Hynek:

Early evidence of the shift in Hynek's opinions appeared in 1953, when Hynek wrote an article for the April 1953 issue of the Journal of the Optical Society of America titled "Unusual Aerial Phenomena," which contained what would become perhaps Hynek's best known statement:

"Ridicule is not part of the scientific method, and people should not be taught that it is. The steady flow of reports, often made in concert by reliable observers, raises questions of scientific obligation and responsibility. Is there ... any residue that is worthy of scientific attention? Or, if there isn't, does not an obligation exist to say so to the public—not in words of open ridicule but seriously, to keep faith with the trust the public places in science and scientists?" (Emphasis in original)

The essay was very carefully worded: Hynek never states that UFOs are an extraordinary phenomenon. But it is clear that, whatever his own views, Hynek was increasingly distressed by what he saw as the superficial manner most scientists looked at UFOs. In 1953, Hynek was an associate member of the Robertson Panel, which concluded that there was nothing anomalous about UFOs, and that a public relations campaign should be undertaken to debunk the subject and reduce public interest. Hynek would later come to lament that the Robertson Panel had helped make UFOs a disreputable field of study.

When the UFO reports continued at a steady pace, Hynek devoted some time to studying the reports and determined that some were deeply puzzling, even after considerable study. He once said, "As a scientist I must be mindful of the past; all too often it has happened that matters of great value to science were overlooked because the new phenomenon did not fit the accepted scientific outlook of the time."

In a 1985 interview, when asked what caused his change of opinion, Hynek responded, "Two things, really. One was the completely negative and unyielding attitude of the Air Force. They wouldn't give UFOs the chance of existing, even if they were flying up and down the street in broad daylight. Everything had to have an explanation. I began to resent that, even though I basically felt the same way, because I still thought they weren't going about it in the right way. You can't assume that everything is black no matter what. Secondly, the caliber of the witnesses began to trouble me. Quite a few instances were reported by military pilots, for example, and I knew them to be fairly well-trained, so this is when I first began to think that, well, maybe there was something to all this."

45. Be careful what you ask for. I won't send any documentary evidence to you.

And I don't expect you to believe what people tell you from their personal experiences.

I just hope you don't have such an experience. Because you so devoutly believe that something that you can't document can't be true, that such and experience would shatter your sense of reality.

As I pointed out, people did not believe that bacteria existed until someone invented a microscope strong enough to permit us to see them.

People used to believe the earth was flat, until someone proved them wrong.

Many things that we can now easily explain thanks to science, we once thought were magical.

I think the best policy is to remain at the same time skeptical and open to new ideas and possibilities. I don't "believe" in things for which there is no evidence, either evidence based on my own experience or some seemingly objectively reliable evidence, but I don't totally discount claims and experiences that others claim to have had for which there is at this time no empirical evidence.

It's the people who don't accept common beliefs, who are not bound by what has already been proved, who make new discoveries and develop new technologies.

I believe in always keeping that childish part of myself that is curious about things I can't explain. It keeps you young. It keeps your mind young.

54. It works both ways; thus the original post

If you've seen 'stuff' then who am I to tell you wrong? Really?

But for those of us who have not, that are careful not to anthropomorphicaly adjust shadows or sounds, this is non-sensical.

Yet, I do agree that 'science' is just another religion. Quantum physics literally destroyed my sense of reality. Shit gets really, really weird down in those parts. So, throw out teh 'double-slit' experiment once in a while dude.

I disagree with you wholly and entirely: no ghosts, no souls, et al.

But, I speak from the reality I have here. Let's take a vacation in a black-hole (we wouldn't survive) and tell the world what it is...

You're last sentence I agree with entirely guy (or gal).

E=mc2. Thats the macro level; which tells us time is not a constant. Crazy, crazy.

Or look up this:

that's just 1 of 6. You'll find the rest if it interests you... it's dang good.

48. So what is the best evidence that paranormal events don't exist?

Non believers are forever demanding scientific evidence and PROOF but sit back totally complacent that they don't need to do anything to prove their non belief.

Give me the proof that UFOs don't exist. Or that people have never had paranormal experiences or that reincarnation is all a lie.

I like to keep an open mind when I don't know the answer one way or the other. And I also keep belief separate from scientific proof in my mind. Do I believe it's possible that there are psychics? I believe they might exist. Just like I believe God might exist perhaps in a different way than we imagine.

49. I believe in polka dotted giant unicorns. I suspect you don't.

Can you give me scientific proof they don't?

UFOs may exist. People may have had paranormal experiences. Reincarnation may be a fact. There may be psychics. God may exist. Polka dotted giant unicorns may exist. I've seen no proof that any of these is true. Why should my claim merit any more respect than any of the others? I have the same level of evidence the others have. None.

53. but your argument was that I don't believe in unicorns

which is a leap of faith on your part since all you're doing is jumping to conclusions about what I believe without even a shred of evidence. So your argument is based on your assumptions about what I believe. You're a victim of your own faux rationalizations or you believe everyone is you, therefore you evidently think you have the perfect foil.

That's like saying Bush was elected and the Supreme Court didn't, in fact, select him and then proceeding to make your case based on the lie that he was elected as if it were the truth, conveniently forgetting that he actually wasn't elected by us, the people.

The Truth isn't what makes history. It's the perception of Truth that makes history and the acceptance of the false as Truth that makes history.

57. "but your argument was that I don't believe in unicorns"

Oh, come on. I've read your posts and you're smart enough to know that was just an example. Could have been "Mickey Mouse is the Supreme Leader of the Universe' or whatever. And it wasn't simply unicorns...it was giant, polka-dotted unicorns. Ever seen them in a cartoon?

Here's a challenge. You accuse us nay-sayers of not proving our position. Tell us one thing you don't believe in and provide proof that it doesn't exist. You can choose from a multitude of gods (Zeus, Osiris, Mithra...the list goes on and on), fabulous beasties (dragons, fairies, phoenixes (phoenices??), Bigfoot, Nessie..) or anything else. Your choice, and your choice only.

Now, I anticipate you'll say something like "I'm not going to do your homework for you" but then you're putting yourself into the group of people who you are complaining about i.e. those who disbelieve something but refuse to provide evidence. You wouldn't want that, would you?

But think of the wider picture. We nay-sayers have struggled with providing proof of the non-existence of gods, fairies and bigfoot. If YOU could provide a brilliant proof of something you don't believe in, we nay-sayers would learn a great deal. Plus, we could adopt your argument to disprove the existence of fairies, Bigfoot and Osiris. We'd be most grateful.

PS you have a very shallow view of history. There are a number of American historians who have challenged and are challenging the "mainstream" view of American history. I know this and I'm not even American.

59. Seriously, I do not see your point. It is science. Enlighten me. n-t

60. The point is...

That things that are understood at one point to be "science" (a misuse of the word that I will forgive for the sake of argument) are at an earlier point perceived as "supernatural" before they are understood and explained in a deterministic way.

63. Absolute proof is mostly a theory of the uneducated

Seldom does absolute certainty end a scientific study. There is much anecdotal evidence of different forms of "communication" or "manipulation" among humans and their interaction with the world.

What's being illustrated is our ignorance. Proper skepticism is essential to avoid the many examples of fraud, and dishonesty. But if we allow ourselves to reach conclusions based on fringe behavior, then we are making a mistake.

68. I have had associations with several New Age cults, met many occultists,

and I have attended and participated in many rituals, but I have never seen anything supernatural.

That said, I do like many of New Agers I have met over the years. Some of them can throw a really good party.

I am a skeptic that loves New Age cults. I am especially fond of the O.T.O. Fun people.

If anything, my associations with New Age cults has only deepened my skepticism.

ETA: I just wanted to mention that not all New Agers focus on the supernatural, many use ritual magick strictly for self improvement, and is probably closer to meditation than what we think of when we think of "magick."

89. yes

73. Some of us have learned that establishment science is limited and it can't comprehend many things..

Take yourself back a century or two and see how infallible "science" was. How much it didn't understand and couldn't even comprehend. See how mainstream science repeatedly got it dead wrong on a number of issues.

And then maybe you'll stop calling people "irrational" and implying their stupidity because they are not ready to dismiss a massive body of testimonial evidence simply because science simply hasn't found a way to explain it yet.

74. Actually science has explained it.

76. LOL, that old argument.......

People like you say all the time "People didn't think Radio or TV was possible either"

Pure 100% bullshit. Those topics are not like the ones I listed!

I will wait for a response on anything that there is currently research on that has ANY scientifically proof on the topics I listed. Anything! Please, make me fee foolish and send me a link to some real science on any of those topics!!!!!!!